What is Secularism?

Mohammad Gill
Mar 18, 2005

The fundamental principle of is that in his whole conduct, man should be guided exclusively by considerations derived from the present life itself. Anything that is above or beyond the present life should be entirely overlooked. Whether exists or not, whether the soul is immortal or not, are questions which at best cannot be answered, and on which consequently no motives of action can be based. A fortiori all motives derived from the (Christian) are worthless. Things Secular are as separate from the Church as land from the ocean. (1)

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto the things that are ’s. (Holy Bible: Matthew 22:21)

When I published my articles “What is Islamization of ?” and “Planting in the World – A Mantra for Freedom” at , there were heated discussions, which brought the doctrine of into arguments. Several discussers used arguments in support of or against without really understanding its essence or inherent principle. Many still think or like to think that is essentially or godlessness. While many secularists (freethinkers) are Individually indeed atheists and agnostics, by itself doesn’t require anybody to be unbeliever. A secular does not allow to interfere in its state affairs and at the same time, it does not curtail religious freedom. It doesn’t require the to abandon their .

I thought it would be appropriate to discuss and attempt to clarify the concept of in an article solely devoted to it.

Although modern is essentially a western concept, it doesn’t need to be confined to the narrowness of the western parameters of thought and culture. It is sufficiently flexible to be adopted by all cultures using their own peculiar cultural parameters and definitions, which need not be totally concordant with the western and Christian oriented mores. Even in the western countries, there are different variants of in practice.

As an example of with a local spin, Indian is a good instance. According to wikipedia (2), “In , where Muslims and Christians are in a minority, right wing groups allege that they are given special privileges and advantages over Hindus which is a consideration adopted by the to accommodate for the religious differences (see Shah Bano case). However, many Indians (including moderate Muslims and Christians) are pressing for implementation of a uniform civil code as originally proposed in the of …..However Hindus legally have more than other religions through tax breaks for Hindu Undivided families and adoption only for Hindus. Many schools routinely teach Hindu religious songs in school, such as part of early morning prayers.” In also, before the martial regime of Zia-ul-Haq, the was by and large secular, which included the Islamic laws. Indian will hopefully improve and become more uniform with the passage of time.

in the west came into existence as a result of the clash between the Roman Catholic Church and the medieval kingly states of Europe, which struggled with each other for gaining political supremacy. Many states resolved the conflict by accepting the doctrine of the separation of church from state. In the day to day affairs of the , interference of the church was excluded and the state ceased to have a state . In a multi-religious society, the state would have nothing to do with the beliefs and practice of different religions. The state would also not treat the unbelievers, agnostics and atheists, any different from the others who professed belief in a . The people would be free to practice whatever they believed in. By the same token, would not seek to impose its laws and tenets in the of the state.

This separation, and symbiosis of the church and state as separate entities came into existence only when “after centuries of bloody strife and persecution, growing numbers of Christians finally concluded that only by depriving the churches of access to the coercive and repressive powers of the state, and by depriving the state of the power to interfere in the affairs of the church, could they achieve any tolerable coexistence between people of differing faiths and creeds,” (3).

does not demand a state to be essentially atheistic or opposed to any . A state should be uniformly fair and tolerant to all religions and even unbelief. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “ is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three:
1. The improvement of this life by material means.
2. The is the available Providence of man.
3. That it is good to be good. ‘Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.’”

Although separation of church and state ensures freedom of , the latter does not necessarily ensure that the system is secular. There are instances of non-secular governments, which provide religious freedom to their . For example, according to wikipedia (Separation of church and state) (1), “There are many countries with an official , such as the United Kingdom or Belgium, where freedom of is guaranteed. Conversely, it is possible for a country not to have an official , or a set of official religions, yet to discriminate against atheists or members of religions outside of the mainstream. For instance, while the United States does not officially advance any particular , proponents of were persecuted in many US jurisdictions in the 19th century.”

Separating State and in the Muslim World

Judah Deen ho siyasat sey tau reh jaati haiy Chingezi. (Iqbal)

The idea that any group of persons, any kind of activities, any part of human life is in any sense outside the scope of religious and jurisdiction is alien to Muslim thought. There is only a single , the shari’a, accepted by Muslims as of divine origin and regulating all aspects of human life: civil, commercial, criminal, constitutional, as well as matters more specifically concerned with in the limited Christian sense of that word. (5)

The issue of separating from the statecraft is particularly tangled and tenuous in the Muslim world. Unlike Christian world, the Mosque and State are not two independent entities; they are intertwined and converged into each other. The concept that the essentially is the providence of and the earthly ruler is only His vicegerent (Khalifah) is divinely ordained. It cannot be changed although it can, in theory, be reinterpreted suitably. Reinterpretation of the Quran and Shariah is accepted, in principle, by the Muslims as a provision in but it has been made so restrictive and difficult that it has been rarely used. At the same time, only ulema can practice ijtihad (reinterpretation) because others however much enlightened and educated, even in , they may be, are not trusted. This is particularly true if such a person happens to be a western educated scholar.

The ulema wouldn’t part with the political power by practicing ijtihad to separate from the state, which shariah bestows on them. Current Iranian situation is a case in point.

Bernard Lewis (6) commented on this Islamic concept, “In the Muslim perception, there is no human legislative power, and there is only one for the believers – the Holy of , promulgated by revelation. This could be amplified and interpreted by tradition and reasoning. It could not be changed, and no Muslim ruler could, in theory, either add or subtract a single rule.” In practice, however, the rulers did both to suit their temporal needs and requirements and there were always some ulema around who could provide the requisite justification from the .

He (6) also stated of the method of governance in Prophet Muhammad’s time, “The state was the church and the church was the state, and was head of both, with the prophet as the representative on earth.”

Islamic theory exists in its own right but the tug of modernity, particularly on the educated class of the Muslim world, is growing in strength and intensity despite the counteracting forces of orthodoxy, conservatism, and fundamental and radical impulses. The situation is made more complicated by the imperialistic activities of the west in the Muslim lands. There has been a historical hatred toward the west in the Muslim world, which has increased a great deal now due to the western political misadventures in the Middle East. Because the educated class of the Muslim world is generally symbolized and identified as western, it has also become a target of retaliation, which the orthodox elements want to wreak on the west. Anything, even slightly emblematic of the western thought and liberalism, is tarred and condemned. This struggle between push toward modernity and tug toward orthodoxy, and against modernity, is raging fiercely in the Muslim world. This is however nothing new; it existed historically at all times although it has become particularly intense now.

Of all the Muslim countries in the world, Turkey is the only secular country, which has separated from the affairs of the . When Kemal Ataturk fought battles against the invading armies of Britain and its allies in the first World , he became an instant hero of the Muslim world and was dearly cherished. Allamah Iqbal sang songs of praise and admiration for him and the Turks. He wrote:

Agar Usmanioon (Ottomans) per koh-e-gham toota tau kiya gham haiy
Keh khoon-e-sadd hazar anjum sey hoti haiy sehar paidah

Haram ruswa hua Pir-e-Haram ki kum nigahi sey
Jawanaan-e-Tatari (Turks) kiss qadar sahib nazar niklay

Hamara naram rau qasad pyam-e-zindigi laaya
Khabar daitee theen jin ko bijillian woh be khabar niklay

Jahan mein ahl-e-eeman soorat-e-khurshid jeetay hain
Idhar doobay udhar niklay, udhar doobay idhar niklay

He symbolized and eulogized him (Ataturk) as “Mard-e-Momin” and “Mard-e-Kamal.” However, when Ataturk deposed Khilafat
and secularized Turkey, the orthodox Muslim world was thrown into an intellectual vortex. Most of them didn’t know how to rationalize what Ataturk had done and how to continue worshipping him as a hero. Iqbal was also outwitted but he however provided such rationalization as follows (7):

“According to Sunni the appointment of an Imam or Khalifa is absolutely indispensable. The first question that arises in this connection is this: Should the caliphate be vested in a single person? Turkey’s ijtihad is that according to the spirit of the caliphate or Imamate can be vested in a body of persons, or an elected Assembly. The religious doctors of in Egypt and , so far as I know, have not yet expressed themselves on this point. Personally, I believe the Turkish view is perfectly sound. It is hardly necessary to argue this point. The republican form of is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of , but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that are set free in the world of ,” ().

Although he did not explicitly comment on secularization of the Turkish , Iqbal did endorse the result of this activity, i.e., the republican form of . This was a great step toward modernization by Allamah Iqbal, which should also be heeded by other Muslim states and scholars.

It is Good to do Good

This postulate hardly needs any external support for its legitimacy; it is valid by itself. It is good to do good rather than doing bad. In the zeal of our religious fervor, we sometimes tend to forget that all of us belong to the same species, i.e., the homosapien. Thus we are related to and with each other. Harming a fellow human being without any reason should be evil. That the other person belongs to a different , color, or culture is not a good reason for persecution.

The constitutions inspired and derived from do usually condone or overlook persecution on religious grounds although there may be some exceptions.

There is no valid reason for Pakistanis to discriminate against the on religious grounds. Remember, it was the fear of persecution on religious grounds which became the basis of creating . It is hypocritical to indulge in the same practices which we had condemned when we demanded . Just imagine how you would feel in the US if the provided for on religious grounds. The very thought of being degraded to the status of a second-class citizen on the basis of my is abominable to me. Why then would I seek to discriminate or condone against others on religious grounds?

Many of us consider it an act of loyalty to our to defend the Hudood laws at all costs even though there are actual incidents showing that such laws are unfair and work totally to the disadvantage of the weaker sex, our .

Two of the most scandalous cases in the recent history of are those of Mukhtaran Bibi and Dr. Shazia. Whosoever seeks to provide escape routes to the culprits by convoluted arguments, is a ‘person without conscience and guilty of aggravating the victims.’ It can be argued that such incidents occur in the secular societies also. Yes, they do but the perpetrators are usually brought to . They are pursued, apprehended, tried, and made to pay for their crimes, one way or the other. It may take many years in some cases for closure but the wheels of do not stop grinding until the offenders are brought to .

To condone an evil act is itself evil.

References

1.“Separation of church and state,” Wikipedia. http://e.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state.

2.“Pseudo-,” Wikipedia. http://e.wikipedia.org/wiki/pseud_secularism.
3.Bernard Lewis, “What Went Wrong,”Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 103.
4.“,” Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13676a.htm.
5.Ref. 3, p. 100.
6.Ibid, p. 101.
7.Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in ,” Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, , , reprinted in 1999, p. 157.